Substantial Question of Law in CENVAT credit dispute fails where findings are purely factual and no intent to evade is shown

A challenge to the Tribunal's view on a show cause notice issued under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT credit did not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's conclusion rested on factual findings that the notice proceeded on an inapplicable footing, there was no fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, and the assessee corrected the lapse once pointed out by making the required entries. On that factual basis, further pursuit of the proceedings was treated as unjustified and the appeal lacked merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the show cause notice invoking Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT credit was unsustainable gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal's decision rested on factual findings that the notice was issued on an inapplicable footing and that the case did not involve fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts, or any contravention with intent to evade duty. It was also found that once the lapse was pointed out, the assessee complied and made the requisite entries, making further pursuit of the proceedings unjustified. These findings were treated as factual and not giving rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the appeal was held to be without merit.

---